ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SCIENCE ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
M.Sc. THESIS Kerem ÖZCAN
JUNE 2013
CRAFTING MASS CUSTOMIZATION:
A STUDY ON INTEGRATING CRAFT CUSTOMIZATION ATTRIBUTES INTO USER CO-DESIGN TOOLKITS
Department of Industrial Product Design Industrial Product Design Programme
Anabilim Dalı : Herhangi Mühendislik, Bilim Programı : Herhangi Program
JUNE 2013
ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SCIENCE ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
CRAFTING MASS CUSTOMIZATION:
A STUDY ON INTEGRATING CRAFT CUSTOMIZATION ATTRIBUTES INTO USER CO-DESIGN TOOLKITS
M.Sc. THESIS Kerem ÖZCAN
502091938
Department of Industrial Product Design Industrial Product Design Programme
Anabilim Dalı : Herhangi Mühendislik, Bilim Programı : Herhangi Program
Thesis Advisors: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şebnem TİMUR ÖĞÜT Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mine ÖZKAR
HAZİRAN 2013
İSTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ FEN BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ
KİTLESEL ÖZELLEŞTİRMEYİ İŞLEMEK: ZANAATKAR
ÖZELLEŞTİRMESİ NİTELİKLERİNİN KULLANICI ORTAK TASARIM ARAÇLARINA UYARLANMASI ÜZERİNE BİR ÇALIŞMA
YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ Kerem ÖZCAN
502091938
Endüstri Ürünleri Tasarımı Anabilim Dalı Endüstri Ürünleri Tasarımı Programı
Anabilim Dalı : Herhangi Mühendislik, Bilim Programı : Herhangi Program
Tez Danışmanları: Doç. Dr. Şebnem TİMUR ÖĞÜT Doç. Dr. Mine ÖZKAR
Thesis Advisor : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şebnem TİMUR ÖĞÜT İstanbul Technical University
Co-advisor : Assoc. Prof.Dr. Mine ÖZKAR İstanbul Technical University
Jury Members : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hümanur BAĞLI İstanbul Technical University
Assist. Prof. Dr. Ebru GÜZELDEREN Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University
Assist. Prof. Dr. Pınar ÖZTÜRK Okan University
Kerem ÖZCAN, a M.Sc. student of ITU Graduate School of Science, Engineering and Technology student ID 502091938, successfully defended the thesis entitled “CRAFTING MASS CUSTOMIZATION: A STUDY ON INTEGRATING CRAFT CUSTOMIZATION ATTRIBUTES INTO USER CO-DESIGN TOOLKITS”, which he prepared after fulfilling the requirements specified in the associated legislations, before the jury whose signatures are below.
Date of Submission : 03 May 2013 Date of Defense : 03 June 2013
FOREWORD
First, I would like to thank my wife Damla SAĞLAM, for that she has always been very understanding to the grumpy man who has withdrawn into his shell to write this thesis and left her alone for many, many weekends.
Next, I would like to express my deep appreciation and thanks for my advisors, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şebnem TİMUR ÖĞÜT and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mine ÖZKAR for all their support and contribution in this long journey, as well as the other members of my jury, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hümanur BAĞLI, Assist Prof. Dr. Ebru GÜZELDEREN, Assist Prof. Dr. Pınar ÖZTÜRK for sharing their valuable views that helped improve the shortcomings in my thesis.
I would also like to thank the people who have contributed to this study in various aspects, either by their actual participation or by their facilitation of research activities; Prof. Dr. Oğuz BAYRAKÇI, Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Zeki TURAN, Prof. Dr. Alpay ER, Prof. Dr. Özlem Er, Hüseyin ALTIPARMAKOĞULLARI, Ahmet BAYRAMÇA, Ahmet DAĞHAN, Yener ALTIPARMAKOĞULLARI, Ilgım EROĞLU, Abdüsselam Selami ÇİFTER, Nihan Linda LAFÇI, Bilge KÖPRÜLÜ, Asu AKSU, Mukaddes ÖZCAN, Turgut ÖZCAN, Erkin ÖZCAN, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Çiğdem KAYA, Assist. Prof. Dr. Ayhan ENŞİCİ, Koray GELMEZ, Miray BOĞA, Özge MERZALI ÇELİKOĞLU, Dilfer NASIR, Uğur MUTLU and Düzgün Bey & Emre Bey from Kent Print Shop.
June 2013 Kerem Özcan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD ... vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... xi
LIST OF TABLES ... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ... xv
SUMMARY ... xvii
ÖZET ... xix
1.INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 Definition of the Problematic ... 3
1.2 Purpose of the Thesis ... 5
1.3 Thesis Research ... 7
2. BACKGROUND: HISTORICAL TIMELINE, EXPLANATION OF THE KEY CONCEPTS AND LITERATURE REVIEW ... 9
2.1 Rise of Mass Customization Concept’s Popularity ... 11
2.2 Reasons for Lack of Success in Mass Customization Business Models ... 12
2.3 Key Elements of Mass Customization ... 12
2.3.1 Solution space ... 13
2.3.2 Advanced manufacturing process ... 15
2.3.3 Toolkits for customer co-design ... 16
2.4 Enablers of Product Based Mass Customization ... 17
2.4.1 Parametric modeling ... 17
2.4.2 Digital fabrication ... 18
2.4.3 User-customization interfaces ... 20
2.4.4 Motives of the research ... 21
3. METHODOLOGY ... 25
3.1 Semi-Structured Interviews ... 25
3.2 Procedure ... 25
3.3 Participants ... 27
3.3.1 Interview with Hüsnü Altıparmakoğulları, cutler ... 27
3.3.2 Interview with Ahmet Bayramça (a.k.a. curly Ahmet), ironsmith ... 28
3.3.3 Interview with Ahmet Dağhan, cabinetmaker ... 30
3.4 Interview Questions ... 31
3.5 Analysis of the Interviews ... 32
4. RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH: THE ATTRUBUTES OF CRAFT-CUSTOMIZATION PROCESS ... 35
4.1 Communicative Attributes ... 36
4.1.1 Interpretation ... 36
4.1.2 Use of simplified language ... 37
4.1.3 Simultaneous visualization ... 39
4.2 Decisional Attributes ... 41
4.2.2 Guidance ... 44
4.2.3 Designer’s style ... 45
4.3 Reflective Practice Attributes ... 47
4.3.1 Learning through practice ... 47
4.3.2 Learning from customer feedback... 48
4.3.3 Making for pleasure ... 49
4.4 Experience Enriching Attributes ... 50
4.4.1 Uniqueness ... 50
4.4.2 Designer item ... 52
4.4.3 Narration... 53
5. APPLICATION OF THE RESEARCH: A GUIDELINE TO DESIGN AND EVALUATE USER CUSTOMIZATION INTERFACES... 57
5.1 Evaluation Procedure ... 57
5.2 Evaluation Questions ... 58
5.3 Evaluation of Selected Web-Based User-Customization Interfaces ... 65
5.3.1 Crayon creatures ... 66
5.3.2 Electrobloom ... 67
5.3.3 Flat clock ... 68
5.3.4 i.materialise appear lamp... 69
5.3.5 miAdidas ... 70
5.3.6 Nervous system cell cycle ring... 71
5.3.7 Twikit ... 72
5.3.8 Sculpteo ... 73
5.3.9 Society for printable geometry (SFPG) ... 74
5.3.10 Shapeways sake set ... 75
5.3.11 Shapeways sketch-sheet earring ... 76
5.3.12 Supabold fluid vase ... 77
5.4 A Comparative Table of the Evaluated User Customization Interfaces ... 78
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 81
6.1 Practical Application of This Study ... 83
6.2 Recommendations for Further Study ... 83
REFERENCES ... 85 APPENDICES ... 95 APPENDIX A ... 97 APPENDIX B ... 111 APPENDIX C ... 117 APPENDIX D ... 125 CURRICULUM VITAE ... 127
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 5.1 : Evaluation of digital user customization interfaces in the light of the
research made on craft customization processes ... 79 Table D.1 : A Checklist for evaluating user customization interfaces in consideration of the attributes that are intrinsic to craft customization ... 125
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 : Formlabs Form 1 3D printer ... 20
Figure 2.2 : A few web-based user-customization interface examples with sliders and multiple choice menus ... 22
Figure 3.1 : Hüsnü Altıparmakoğulları, cutler ... 28
Figure 3.2 : Ahmet Bayramça, ironsmith ... 29
Figure 3.3 : Ahmet Dağhan, cabinetmaker ... 30
Figure 4.1 : Visualization of craft customization attributes ... 35
Figure 4.2 : An original design by Altıparmakoğulları crafted according to the demands made by one of his customers. He interpreted his needs and turned them into design parameters ... 36
Figure 4.3 : Bayramça has various catalogues in his workshop that he utilizes as a medium to better understand customers’ wants and needs ... 37
Figure 4.4 : A ‘five-star’ knife by Altıparmakoğulları. Instead of milimetric dimensions which would potentially be confusing for the customers, cutlers use stars as indicators of size ... 38
Figure 4.5 : A quick freehand sketch by Altıparmakoğulları. Freehand sketches are one of the most frequently used ways of visualization in craft customization ... 39
Figure 4.6 : CAD drawing by Dağhan. CAD drawings are rare in craft customization scene, but not impossible to come across ... 40
Figure 4.7 : A quick hand-drawn plan by Dağhan. Though kitchens are co-designed with customers according to their demands, Dağhan is the one to designate certain critical design decisions such as the sizes o units or where to place the utilities ... 42
Figure 4.8 : Bayramça states that he regularly guides customers about which ornaments to use for decorating wrought iron gates ... 44
Figure 4.9 : Altıparmakoğulları is certain that his work have consistent characteristics, in other words a ‘style’ that can be recognized even from the washers of the rivets in the knives he designs ... 46
Figure 4.10 : Altıparmakoğulları at work. The primary mean by which craftsmen advance their work is through rigorous practice ... 47
Figure 4.11 : A non-functional blade by Altıparmakoğulları, made purely for self-satisfactory purposes ... 49
Figure 4.12 : “Even if the same craftsman hits the same iron with the same hammer, you still do not get same results. You get a different result every time 51 Figure 4.13 : Altıparmakoğulları finishes off his knives by engraving his family’s easily recognizable seal. According to him, his name is a brand by itself ... 53
Figure 4.14 : Craftsmen enhance customization processes through various ways, one of them being narration. Bayramça states that he informs his clients on
many aspects of wrought iron, including its history and etymology .... 54
Figure 5.1 : An image from Crayon Creature’s website ... 66
Figure 5.2 : An image from Electrobloom’s customization interface ... 67
Figure 5.3 : An image from Flat clock’s customization interface ... 68
Figure 5.4 : An image from i.materialise’s customization interface ... 69
Figure 5.5 : An image from miAdidas’ customization interface ... 70
Figure 5.6 : An image from Nervous Systems’ customization interface ... 71
Figure 5.7 : An image from Twikit’s customization interface ... 72
Figure 5.8 : An image from Sculpteo’s customization interface ... 73
Figure 5.9 : An image from SFPG’s customization interface ... 74
Figure 5.10 : An image from Shapeways’ Sake Set customization interface ... 75
Figure 5.11 : An image from Shapeways’ Earring customization interface ... 76
CRAFTING MASS CUSTOMIZATION: A STUDY ON INTEGRATING CRAFT CUSTOMIZATION ATTRIBUTES INTO USER CO-DESIGN
TOOLKITS SUMMARY
The economic paradigm prevalent in today’s world does not seem likely to change any time soon. As the mass manufactured standardized goods dominate the market more and more every day, the craftsmen who design and make bespoke products leave the scene one by one. Although firms regularly benefit from marketing strategies that encourage product diversity accompanied by an individualist rhetoric, most of these strategies fail to achieve desired success. However, it is considered that bespoke manufacturing will be easier in the future and the number of customization-based businesses will increase in the following years, as a particular technological advancement in the field of manufacturing, namely ‘digital fabrication techniques’ (e.g. 3D Printing) will find widespread use.
Although there are future scenarios that predict amateur users who have access to these technologies will design for their own wants and needs, a professional designer involvement in product customization process is essential to obtain satisfactory outcomes. However, it is economically not sound to envision a designer conducting each and every customization process, forasmuch in such case it would not be possible for customized products to compete with their mass-produced equivalents in terms of costs. For that reason, customers should be provided with user co-design toolkits in which designer contribution is already integrated.
Within the scope of this thesis, first the historical background, which has prepared the conditions that lead to the projected future scenario, is investigated. Subsequent to this, the key concepts of mass customization business model, which is anticipated to have more presence in future, is explained. This explanation is followed by designating the counterparts of these concepts in a product-based mass customization scenario of near future. Consequently, a literature review regarding these concepts were made and it was determined that the principal area that needs design research contribution is the design and development of the user co-design toolkits. Therefore, it was decided to construct the research in order to explore new means to improve these toolkits (especially digital user customization interfaces). In accordance with this purpose, a research was made on current modes of obtaining customized outcomes. However, the subjects of this research were not industrial designers who were trained to produced standardized end-results for the mass market, but craftsmen that have centuries of tradition in designing and making tailored outcomes. The motivation behind this preference was not only reaching information that is more authentic, but also finding contemporary means to preserve the accumulated customization knowledge disappearing trades through their last representatives.
In accordance with aforementioned motivations, a research in form of semi-structured interviews was made with craftsmen that design and make bespoke products. The questions in this research were designated regarding the flaws pointed out in literature review and co-design toolkits of mass customization businesses that are currently available. Although the questions were present at all times during the interviews, the craftsmen were given enough opportunity to share their thoughts and experiences about their own customization processes.
The findings of the research yielded to twelve characteristics that are intrinsic to craft customization. These characteristics can be grouped under four headers: ‘communicative attributes’, ‘decisional attributes’, ‘reflective practice attributes’ and ‘experience enriching attributes’. Each of these twelve attributes point out to a quality that is inherent in the craft customization. Although presence of these qualities is essential for the success of customization processes, their adaptations are rarely (and in most cases only partially) observed in presently available user co-design toolkits.
In the final chapter of the thesis, it was aimed to reframe the findings of the research into a more explicit way, so that it is easier for designers to benefit from them. For this purpose, the twelve attributes of craft customization that are designated in the research were rephrased as questions, which can be used to evaluate available user-customization interfaces. Although the formulated questions serve primarily as a checklist for assessment purposes, they can also be utilized as a guideline by designers that are responsible for designing user co-design toolkits. In order to exemplify a hypothetical use, a series of web-based digital user customization interfaces were evaluated in accordance with these questions. Subsequently, the results were presented in the form of a table, where they can be seen comparatively.
KİTLESEL ÖZELLEŞTİRMEYİ İŞLEMEK: ZANAATKAR
ÖZELLEŞTİRMESİ NİTELİKLERİNİN KULLANICI ORTAK TASARIM ARAÇLARINA UYARLANMASI ÜZERİNE BİR ÇALIŞMA
ÖZET
İçinde yaşamakta olduğumuz seri üretime dayalı ekonomik paradigma yakın gelecekte değişmeyecek gibi görünmektedir. Fabrika çıkışı standart ürünler her geçen gün piyasalara daha fazla hâkim olurken, kişiye özel ürünler ortaya çıkaran zanaatkarlar üretim sahnesinden birer birer çekilmektedir. Her ne kadar firmalar bireyselci söylem doğrultusunda ürün çeşitliliği yaratan pazarlama stratejileri geliştirseler de, bu yöntemler çeşitli sebeplerden dolayı istenilen başarıyı yakalayamamaktadır. Fakat “sayısal üretim” başlığı altında incelenebilecek çeşitli teknolojilerin (Ör: 3B Yazıcı teknolojileri) yaygınlaşmasıyla tekil üretimin kolaylaşacağı ve özelleştirme temelli iş modellerinin sayılarının artacağı tahmin edilmektedir.
Her ne kadar bu teknolojilere erişimi olan amatör son kullanıcının kendi istek ve ihtiyaçlarına göre tasarım ve üretim yapacağının öngörüldüğü senaryolar olsa da, bu süreçte tatminkâr sonuçlar elde etmek için profesyonel bir tasarımcı yardımı elzemdir. Fakat her özelleştirme süreci için bir tasarımcının son tüketiciye birebir yardım etmesi fikri ekonomik gerekçelerden dolayı makul değildir. Zira bu durumda kişiye özel üretilecek ürünlerin seri üretim ürünlere karşı rekabet avantajına sahip olmaları mümkün olmayacaktır. Bu sebeple tüketicilere tasarımcı katkısının önceden içine gömüldüğü ortak tasarım araçları sağlanmalıdır.
Bu tez kapsamında öncelikle öngörülen gelecek senaryosunun koşullarını hazırlayan tarihsel arka plan irdelenmiştir. Daha sonra bu gelecek senaryosunda daha fazla yer alması beklenen ‘kitlesel özelleştirme’ iş modelinin ana kavramları ve bu kavramların yakın gelecekteki ürün tasarımı temelli özelleştirme senaryolarındaki karşılıkları açıklanmıştır. Açıklanan bu kavramlar üzerinden kaynak taraması yapılmış ve tasarım araştırmasının en çok ihtiyaç duyulduğu alanın müşterilerin kullanımına sunulan ortak tasarım araçlarının tasarlanma ve geliştirilme süreci olduğu saptanmıştır. Bu sebeple araştırmanın bu araçların (özellikle de sayısal özelleştirme arayüzlerinin) nasıl iyileştirilebileceği üzerine kurgulanması amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda hâlihazırdaki kişiye özel ürün üretme süreçlerinin irdelenmesine karar verilmiştir. Fakat bu araştırmanın özneleri seri üretilecek ürünleri tasarlamak üzerine eğitim almış olan endüstri ürünleri tasarımcıları değil, yüzyıllardır kişiye özel üretim yapma geleneği geliştirmiş olan zanaatkarlar olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu tercihle hem ortak tasarım süreci ile ilgili daha sahih bilgiye erişmek, hem de sayıları azalan zanaatkarların yöntem ve yaklaşımlarını muhafaza edecek güncel mecraların yaratılmasına katkı sağlamak amaçlanmaktadır.
Bu doğrultuda kişiye özel üretim yapan zanaatkarlarla özelleştirme süreçleri hakkında yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler şeklinde kurgulanan bir araştırma yapılmıştır. Görüşmelerde sorulan sorular yapılan kaynak taramaları ve mevcut kitlesel özelleştirme iş modellerindeki ortak tasarım araçları göz önünde bulundurularak ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Her ne kadar sorular tüm görüşme esnasında hazır bulunsa da zanaatkarların kendi özelleştirme süreçlerine dair deneyim ve tespitlerinin uygun gördükleri bir biçimde anlatmalarına olanak verilmiştir.
Yapılan araştırma sonucunda zanaatkarların özelleştirme süreçlerine dair on iki adet nitelik tespit edilmiştir. Bu nitelikler ‘iletişimsel’, ‘kararsal’, ‘yansıtıcı uygulama’ ve ‘deneyim artırıcı’ isimli dört ana başlık altında derlenebilir. Bu on iki nitelikten her biri zanaatkar özelleştirmesine has özgün bir değere işaret etmektedir. Bu değerlerin varlığı özelleştirme süreçlerinin başarısı için elzem olsa da, mevcut ortak tasarım araçlarında bu değerlerin yansımaları nadiren (ve çoğunlukla ancak kısmi olarak) gözlemlenebilmektedir. Bahsedilen dört ana başlık ve onları oluşturan alt nitelikler bu tez dahilinde etraflıca bir biçimde incelenmiştir.
İletişimsel nitelikler, müşterilerinin istek ve ihtiyaçlarını en doğru biçimde anlamak için zanaatkarlar tarafından kullanılan bir grup iletişim aracıdır. Bu araçlar temelde dilsel olsa da çizim yapma, görsel ile anlatma gibi farklı iletişim yolları da gruba dahil edilebilir. Zanaatkarlar, müşterilerini daha iyi anlamak gayesiyle hem etken olarak (ör. soru sormak, çizim yapmak) hem de edilgen olarak (ör. dinlemek, kullanıcının getirdiği görselleri incelemek) bu araçlardan yararlanabilirler. İletişimsel nitelikler (1) anlamlandırma, (2) sade dil kullanma ve (3) eşzamanlı görselleştirme olarak üçe ayrılmaktadır:
Anlamlandırma, zanaatkarların kullanıcının açık veya örtük istek ve ihtiyaçlarını ortaya çıkarmak için kullandıkları iletişim araçlarıdır. Zanaatkarlar her zaman müşterilerinden tam olarak ne istediklerini ifade etmelerini beklemezler. Yapılan araştırmaya göre müşteriler çok farklı yollar kullanmaktadırlar. Örneğin bazı müşteriler taleplerini anlatmak için beraberlerinde benzer bir ürün veya dergilerden buldukları fotoğrafları getirmektedirler. Kimi zaman ise bir ürün tarif etmek yerine o ürünü nasıl kullanacaklarını ve neler yapacaklarını anlatmaktadırlar. Bu gibi durumlarda zanaatkarların görevi müşterilerin taleplerini anlamlandırmak ve gerekli biçimsel özelliklere sahip ürünlere dönüştürmektir. Bu nitelik bilhassa özelleştirme sürecin başlangıç kısmının daha hızlı ve efektif olmasını sağlamaktadır. Özelleştirme arayüzlerinde de benzer bir yaklaşım kullanılabilir. Özelleştirme sürecinin başında kullanıcıya bazı sorular sorarak veya belli hazır başlangıç noktaları sunarak müşterilerin taleplerini anlama süreci daha efektif bir hale getirilebilir.
Sade dil kullanımı, zanaatkarların başvurduğu diğer bir araçtır. Müşterilerin belirli bir mesleğe ait terminolojiye hakim olması beklenmemelidir. Bu durumun farında olan pek çok zanaatkar müşterileri ile olan iletişimlerinde kullandıkları dilde teknik sözcükler kullanmaktan kaçınmakta, bu teknik terimleri müşterilerinin anlayabileceği kavramlarla açıklamaktadırlar. Benzer şekilde özelleştirme arayüzlerinde de sıradan kullanıcıların anlamakta güçlük çekeceği bir dil kullanımından kaçınılmalıdır.
İletişimsel nitelikler grubunda yer alan son nitelik ise eşzamanlı görselleştirmedir. Zanaatkarlar müşterilerinin isteklerini doğru olarak anladıklarını teyit etmek için dil dışında çeşitli görselleştirme teknikleri kullanılar. Çizimler ve maketler bu yöntemlerin başında gelmektedir. Özelleştirme arayüzlerinde son çıktının eşzamanlı olarak görselleştirilmesi ve parametreler değiştikçe güncellenmesi kullanıcının taleplerinin doğru bir şekilde biçimlendiğini görmesi için elzemdir.
Kararsal nitelikler, zanaatkar özelleştirmesindeki tasarım karar alma süreçlerine dair özelliklerin incelendiği ana başlıktır. Bu nitelikler müşterilerin zanaatkarlar tarafından ne şekilde tasarım kararlarına dahil edildiği (ya da edilmediği) ile ilgilidir. Kararsal nitelikler (1) kritik karar verme, (2) tavsiye verme, (3) tasarımcının tarzı olarak üçe ayrılır.
Kritik karar verme niteliği, sonuç ürünün başarısına dair temel tasarım kararlarının tasarımcı tarafından verilmesi olarak tanımlanabilir. Zanaatkarlar özelleştirme süreçlerinde belli bazı kritik kararları müşterilerinin tercihine sunmazlar. Bunun yanında müşterileri tarafından verilen bazı tasarım kararları doğrultusunda diğer parametrelere dair seçenekleri kısıtlayabilirler (Örneğin, renkleri müşteri tarafından belirlenen çift renkli bir üründe, müşterilerinin seçtikleri ilk renk doğrultusunda ikinci rengin seçim yelpazesini ilk renge uygun olacak şekilde daraltabilirler). Böylece müşterileri ile beraber ortaya çıkardıkları son ürüne dair olası memnuniyetsizliklerin bir kısmını henüz ortaya çıkmadan engellemiş olurlur. Özelleştirme arayüzlerinde de benzer şekilde tüm tasarım kararlarının kullanıcıya bırakılması yerine tasarımcı tarafından belirlenmesi ve yapılan bazı tercihlerin diğerlerini etkilemesi ile daha tatminkar sonuçlara ulaşılabilir.
Tavsiye verme, zanaatkarların deneyimleri ve trend farkındalıkları doğrultusunda müşterilerini yönlendirmesidir. Her ne kadar özelleştirme sürecindeki öznel kararların son kullanıcıya bırakılması esas olsa da, zanaatkarlar sıklıkla bu tercihler hakkındaki fikirlerini müşterileri ile paylaşırlar. Kullanıcı özelleştirme arayüzleri de bu davranışı taklit ederek kullanıcıların daha başarılı sonuçlar elde etmesine yardımcı olabilirler.
Tasarımcının tarzı, son ürüne dair kimi öznel tasarım kararlarının tasarımcının şahsi beğenisine göre belirlenmesidir. Zanaatkarlar kullanıcıya bırakılabilecek bazı tasarım kararlarını kendi tercihleri doğrultusunda belirleme yoluna giderler. Her ne kadar bu durum müşterilerin tercih alanını daraltıyor gibi görünse de, aslında pek çok zaman neden belirli bir zanaatkarın tercih edildiği sorusunun cevabını da içinde barındırır. Kullanıcılar önceki işlerini gördükleri zanaatkarların stillerini belli bir yere kadar okuyabilirler ve kendi özelleştirecekleri ürünlerin de nihai olarak nasıl görüneceği konusunda bir öngörü sahibi olurlar. Benzer bir uygulama kullanıcı özelleştirme arayüzlerin için de yapılabilir. Belli öznel tasarım kararları modifiye edilemeyecek bir şekilde belirlenerek kullanıcıların karar verme süreçlerini kolaylaştırabilir ve müşterilerin nihai ürünün nasıl olacağı konusunda daha isabetli bir tahmin yapmasını sağlayabilir.
Yansıtıcı uygulama nitelikleri, zanaatarların içinde bulundukları özelleştirme ve üretim faaliyetlerinin sürece yaptığı öğretici katkıları ifade eden bir üst başlıktır. Bu nitelikler (1) uygulama vesilesiyle öğrenme, (2) müşteri geri-bildirimi vesilesiyle öğrenme ve (3) kişisel tatmin için üretme olarak üçe ayrılabilir.
Uygulama vesilesiyle öğrenme, zanaatkarların özelleştirme ve üretim süreçleri sırasında elde ettikleri deneyimleri bu süreçleri geliştirmeye yönelik kazanımlara dönüştürmeleri şeklinde özetlenebilir. Bu süreçler ne kadar tekrarlanırsa zanaatkar o derece yetkinleşir. Dolayısıyla her uygulama aynı zamanda bir sonraki uygulamanın nasıl daha iyi yapılabileceğine dair bir öğrenme sürecidir. Kullanıcı özelleştirme arayüzlerinin pek çoğunda ise statik bir yapı vardır ve yapılan uygulamalar sürecin geliştirilmesine yönelik bir katkı sağlamazlar. Halbuki bu süreçlerin sistematik bir biçimde gözlemlenmesi özelleştirme ve üretim uygulamalarının nasıl iyileştirilebileceğine dair yol gösterici olabilir.
Müşteri geri bildirimi vesilesiyle öğrenme, zanaatkarlarının süreçlerini geliştirmeye dair kullandıkları diğer bir yoldur. Zira zanaatkarlar sadece ustalarından değil, müşterilerinden de öğrenirler. Kullanıcılar gerek dile getirdikleri sıradışı fikirler, gerekse de ortaya çıkan ürüne ve özelleştirme sürecine dair eleştirileri ile zanaatkar için bir öğretici görevi görürler. Kullanıcıyı öğretici olarak görme yaklaşımı özellikle günümüz teknolojisini kullanarak oldukça isabetli bir biçimde özelleştirme arayüzlerinde de uygulanabilir. Özelleştirme süreçlerinin iyileştirilmesi için fare imleci takibi, göz takibi, ısı haritaları gibi kullanılabilirlik testleri uygulanabilir. Bu yöntemlerin yanında daha müşteri memnuniyetine dair geri-bildirim anketleri gibi daha konvansiyonel yöntemlerle de müşterilerin sürece öğretici olarak katılmaları sağlanabilir.
Kişisel tatmin için üretme, zanaatkarların ticari gayelerle hareket etmedikleri, kendi sınırlarını zorlamak ve/veya şahsi tatmin için kalkıştıkları üretme yaklaşımıdır. Ustalık mertebesine ulaşan zanaatkarların rakipleri artık kendileri olur. Gayeleri kendi becerilerinin limitlerini test edebilecekleri çalışmalar ortaya koymak haline gelir. Bu doğrultudaki çabaları – her ne kadar çoğu zaman kasıtlı olmasa da – bir öğretim süreci halini alır. Ortaya çıkan ürünler alışılagelen anlamda ‘kullanılabilir’ olmasa da pek çoğu zanaatkarların neler yapmaya muktedir olduğuna dair zafer hatıraları olarak atölyelerinin başköşelerini süslerler. Bu tarz ürünler bir yandan zanaatkarın becerilerine dair müşterilerin duyduğu güvenlerini tazelerken bir yandan da yapabilecekleri tercihler konusunda ufuk açma işlevi görürler. Buna mukabil olarak özelleştirme arayüzleri de parametrelerin rastgele belirlendiği, hatta kimi zaman tasarımcı tarafından tanımlanan limitlerin de dışına çıkılan son ürünler ortaya koyabilir. Böylece arayüz vasıtasıyla elde edilebilecek sonuçlar konusunda kullanıcılara daha geniş bir perspektif sunulabilir.
Deneyim artırıcı nitelikler, aslında somut olarak bakıldığında sürece direkt bir katkısı olmayan, fakat sağladığı endirekt katkılarla müşterilerin özelleştirme süreçleri sırasında yaşadıkları deneyimi zenginleştiren (ve dolayısıyla üründen aldıkları tatmini artıran) olgulardır. Bu nitelikler (1) biriciklik, (2) tasarımcı ürünü olma, (3) anlatılama olarak üçe ayrılabilir.
Biriciklik, zanaatkar özelleştirmesi ile elde edilen ürünlerin eşsiz olması durumudur. Fakat bu bağlamda bahsedilen eşsizlik olgusu, özelleştirilen her ürününde farklı tasarım parametreleri kullanılması hasebiyle ortaya çıkan bir benzersiz olma durumundan ibaret değildir. Zanaatkar üretiminin doğası gereği tüm değişkenler sabit tutulsa bile ortaya çıkan ürün farklı olacaktır. Zira tekil olarak yapılan üretimlerde kesin bir kusursuzluk elde etmek olası değildir. Her ne kadar bu durum ilk bakışta dezavantaj gibi görünse de, aslında üretilen her ürünü eşsiz ve biricik kılmaktadır. Çoğu kullanıcı özelleştirme sürecinde ise aynı parametreler girilmesi durumunda müşteriler özdeş son ürüne ulaşmaktadır. Bu durumun önüne geçmek için son üründe rastgele minimal değişikliklere yol açan bir değişken eklenebilir. Böylece bu arayüzlerde aynı değişkenler seçilse dahi eşsiz ürünler elde edilebilir. Tasarımcı ürünü olma, önceki bölümlerde bahsedilen tasarımcı tarzı olgusundan farklı olarak ürünün belli bir zanaatkarın elinden çıkmaklığı olarak açıklanabilir. Burada yaratılan katma değer o ürünün ismi belli bir tasarımcı tarafından tasarlanmış olmasından ileri gelen tatmin duygusudur. Çoğu özelleştirme arayüzü kullanıcıyı tasarımcı olarak lanse etme pahasına çözüm kümesini oluşturan tasarımcının ismini vermekten imtina etmektedirler. Halbuki tez araştırmasının işaret ettiği üzere, müşteriler ürünlerini beraber özelleştirdikleri zanaatkarların ismiyle beraber anmayı bir tatmin olgusu olarak görmektedirler.
Anlatılama, zanaatkar özelleştirmesi sürecindeki deneyim artırıcı niteliklerin sonuncusudur. Bu nitelik doğrudan sürecin geçtiği ortam ile bağıntılıdır. Pek çok zanaatkar hala özelleştirme sürecini müşterileri ile yüz yüze görüşerek gerçekleştirmektedir. Bu sırada müşteri ile yaşanan etkileşim sadece tasarım kararları hakkında yapılan fikir alışverişlerinden ibaret değildir. Zanaatkarlar özelleştirme süreçlerini kimi zaman kişisel, kimi zaman da meslek ile ilgili pek çok yarı alakalı anlatı ile desteklerler. Bu anlatıların pek çoğunun direkt olarak son ürünün nasıl olacağı ile ilgili iletişim kurma gibi bir gayesi yoktur. Anlatılar daha ziyade kullanıcıların özelleştirme sürecini daha olumlu olarak algılamasına katkı sağlamaktadır. Özelleştirme süreci ile ilgili bu olumlu algı, kullanıcının son ürün hakkındaki görüşlerini de olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. Kullanıcı özelleştirme arayüzleri de benzer şekilde sadece nihai ürünü elde etmek için kullanılan bir araç olarak görülmemeli, kullanıcının ürün hakkındaki algısını da doğrudan etkileyen başlı başına bir faktör olarak kabul edilmelidir. Bu doğrultuda arayüzler zanaatkarların yaptıkları gibi çeşitli anlatılar ile desteklenebilir.
Bu tezde öncelikle zanaatkar özelleştirmesi süreçlerinin nitelikleri saptanmış ve bu niteliklerin kullanıcı özelleştirme arayüzlerindeki olası eşdeğer uygulamalar olarak nasıl karşılık bulabileceğine dair öneriler ortaya konmuştur. Tezin son kısmında zanaatkarların özelleştirme süreçlerine dair yapılan bu araştırmada elde edilen bulguların daha açık bir biçimde tasarımcılara fayda sağlaması amaçlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda araştırma kapsamında tespit edilen on iki adet zanaatkar özelleştirmesi süreci niteliği, sayısal kullanıcı özelleştirme arayüzlerinin sınanması için kullanılabilecek sorular şeklinde kurgulanmıştır. Kurgulanan bu sorular mevcut özelleştirme arayüzlerinin değerlendirilmesi için kullanılabilecekleri gibi bu arayüzlerin tasarımından sorumlu tasarımcılar için de yol gösterici olacaklardır. Bu soruların kullanımına örnek teşkil etmesi açısından tezin sonunda bir grup ağ tabanlı sayısal özelleştirme arayüzü oluşturulan örnek sorular uyarınca değerlendirmeye tabi tutulmuş, sonuçları da karşılaştırmalı olarak görülebilecek şekilde bir tablo halinde okuyucuya sunulmuştur.
1. INTRODUCTION
Looking from the centennial of the introduction of assembly line, the battle between craft production and mass production seems to be long over. Past century has witnessed industrially produced goods take over the market while tailors, shoemakers and carpenters were slowly but surely replaced by sales clerks of the retail stores. Advancements in manufacturing technologies have unintentionally imprisoned the relationship between design and craft production to a niche realm. As mass produced goods dominated the market, unique tailored end-results by craftspeople were taken over by low-cost standardized outcomes. The last couple of decades have seen some efforts, such as ‘personalized marketing’ and ‘mass customization’ business models, which tried to mock the benefits of custom-made products. However, only a handful of these implementations were commercially successful and the vast majority of such products failed to compete on the price tag with their mass-produced equivalents (Vesanen, 2007). As a result, mass production to this day holds its place as the predominant manufacturing method.
Yet a new technological advancement, namely ‘digital fabrication’, might bring a new alternative to this situation. Digital fabrication is an umbrella term for anything that is materialized using digital data real time. This includes everything from laser cutting plywood to 3D Printing (Sass and Oxman, 2006). These production methods are pointed as the future of manufacturing since the late 20th century (Karapatis, Van Griethuysen and Glardon, 1998). Their potential use for mass production is often referred as a complete paradigm shift rather than just another incremental improvement, since it nestles a strong potential to revolutionize conventional business models (Anderson, 2010). These manufacturing methods have not yet seen wide use in final products for the market, since high production costs, low quality end-results and low production speed still stand as the major barriers. Nevertheless, as researchers bring these technologies to perfection, their use becomes increasingly feasible day after day (Berman, 2012).
One of the most exciting developments in the digital fabrication domain is ‘desktop manufacturing’ without a doubt. Low-cost domestic 3D Printers spearhead this concept. By the time this thesis is being written, there are over two dozen 3D printers in the market that are offered for $2000 or less (Evans, 2012). Such devices already made their way into the homes of many hobbyists, enthusiasts, tinkerers and hackers alike. The issue is so trendy that it is impossible to spend a day without seeing an article about it in a mainstream technology blog and/or magazine.
However there is another potential use made ever easier by the use of digital fabrication, which is usually overlooked: Product customization. Unlike the prevailing manufacturing methods, digital fabrication techniques require neither use of molds nor extensive manual labor. Therefore, their input data (i.e. digital design representation) can be customized to fit the wants and needs of individual customer, and final products can be produced one-by-one at almost at the efficiency of mass production (Tseng and Jiao, 2001). This approach can be classified under the concept of ‘mass customization’ – however, with an annotation: Many mass customization applications still work under mass production paradigm. They usually offer consumers only a few options to pick from. What is more, customized products are often put into production by slowing down the same assembly line used to manufacture their mass produced counterparts. This reflects to customers as high prices that companies need to compensate for the resources that they could have used to mass-produce a same type of product.
Yet if digital fabrication technologies’ feasibility increases as anticipated, this scene might change. The nature of this new production approach is much more suitable for the needs of mass customization business models. First of all, it does not have to restrain users with a few options to choose from. Since these fabrication technologies use real time digital data as input, they have the potential to have practically unlimited end-results. Furthermore, manufacturing of a unique, customized product with these technologies does not use more material resources than the mass-produced versions of the same product, since final products are produced individually in accordance with the digital data. Finally, manufacturing digitally fabricated customized products does not require a large production plant by conventional means or manual labor, making the need for overseas production redundant. Hence, products can be manufactured in vicinity to consumers, eliminating costs such as
shipping and import taxes while decreasing the delivery time and reducing product’s carbon footprint (Reeves, 2009).
It is also claimed occasionally that this will lead to a future where users design and fabricate their own products using CAD Tools with low learning curve and digital fabrication techniques (with a special emphasis on desktop manufacturing) (Ratto and Ree, 2012). Although this scenario seems technically possible, the idea that common customers can/will design for their own wants and needs seems naïve. One can draw parallels with such DIY approach in digital design and fabrication duo and tailoring; the design tools and means of production are easily obtainable for all, but a common end-user would most probably lack the fundamental skills to produce a satisfactory outcome. Yet, given the necessary tools, a designer or an haute couture tailor shouldn’t have any problems in realizing adequate end-results for the same challenge. The justification of this presupposition can be observed in the findings of researches about mass customization. Contrary to expectations, many user-customized products have a use life much shorter than their mass produced versions and users turn out to be much less satisfied with the products that they themselves have customized once the initial enthusiasm is gone (Piller, 2004)
1.1 Definition of the Problematic
In line with the evaluations in the earlier paragraphs, one can reach to following deduction: although emerging technologies seem to enable new opportunities for customized products, there is still a need for designer knowledge for the desired results1. This however would eventually limit digital fabrication’s potential to mass-produce custom-made final products. A designer responsible for each customization process would cause such business models to lose not only their economic feasibility, but also their fundamental rhetoric, which is built around user creation.
What would possibly take the place of such designer requirement in the aim of customizing satisfactory products in mass? Initial thinking leads to a hypothetical automated user co-design toolkit, which would mimic designers’ customization behaviors.
At present there are numerous business models where user-customization takes place through web-based user-customization interfaces with several adjustable parameters. However, it is not possible to say that these co-design toolkits truly succeed in integrating designer contribution into customization processes.
There are several reasons behind this phenomenon: Unlike above-mentioned interfaces, customization process of a design professional is realized through ‘associative thinking’ (Treadaway, 2007) where relationships between parameters of a product are taken into account during the customization process (Yang, Zhang and Shan, 2007). In other words, change of a certain parameter in haute couture design process is most likely to require changes in other parameters as well in order to reach a satisfactory outcome (e.g. change in the length of a customized table might require more support material for structural reasons or change of a certain color can yield to change of the accompanying color). There are numerous software tools in the market (e.g. Grasshopper, Processing, Monkey Script etc.), which would allow designers to embed such relationships between design parameters into a design definition. However, most designers are either unaware of this potential or they lack the skills to use them. Thus such relationships between design parameters are usually omitted in user-customization interfaces. Furthermore, there is another element in designer-customization process that user-designer-customization interfaces fail to mock. Designers usually serve as consultants for customers during a face-to-face customization process. They help users to make better choices and translate their wants and needs into forms. In many user customization interfaces guidance of a such designer/ consultant is not only absent, but also its absence is cheered and claimed to be done on purpose for the sake of putting users in the role of designer. At times, such vacancy is promoted with slogans like “Design your very own product” or “You are the designer!” (Von Hippel, 2001). Yet, research shows that while users initially seem to be pleased with products that they themselves customized, use life of products customized without professional assistance are much shorter in comparison to mass-produced standardized products designed by professional designers (Piller, 2004).
1.2 Purpose of the Thesis
The main argument of this thesis is that deficient user customization interfaces fail to provide the benefits provided by designer customization processes. It further claims that hereby-mentioned deficiencies could be overcome by integrating certain elements of designer customization into user-customization interfaces.
It is decided that a research on the attributes of designer-customization processes would be useful to identify the deficiencies that cause user-customization interfaces to fall short. It is anticipated that the findings of this research will be used to transform arid user-interfaces into pre-designed product customization systems that can still seem to leave control to user, while maintaining the essential advantages provided by designer-customization processes.
In accordance with the purpose, a research on designer-customization processes is made to undercover core qualities that user-customization interfaces fail to provide. However, before any further mention to the research, the term “designer” in its context should be clarified. The subject group of this particular research on “designer-customization” was not the university trained design professionals who work in conventional mass-production paradigm jobs, but rather the craftsmen who customize and produce their designs according to the wants and needs of their customers.
There are a few reasons behind this decision. First of all, contemporary product designers who received their design training in the institutions of higher education are mainly trained to become employees integrated into product development processes within the mass production paradigm. They are educated to come up with static end-results eventually to be produced in large numbers. Yet above articulated customization paradigm gives way for them to create design definitions that can generate numerous customized end-results defined by relationships between various parameters, which are eventually to be manufactured individually. Most designers have not received appropriate training to design with such associative thinking approach (Çolakoğlu and Yazar, 2009). Therefore, customizable products designed by them are almost always limited to a few parameters that do not have any association which each other. Such a design approach is distant from utilizing the true potential of parametric modeling tools. Furthermore, not many designers take
role in helping users to customize for their own wants and needs – which is understandable upon making a simple cost-benefit analysis. Hence it would not be unfair to presume that many designers would fail to master in the above suggested consultancy skill2.
The customization workflow of craftsmen can be shown as one of the finest examples of associative thinking by nature – no matter how implicit it may seem. Craftsmen usually listen to their customers, understand their wants and needs, inform them about what can/cannot be done and make suggestions. They then translate these inputs into design parameters and rely on their past experience in order to make sure that there are no contradictory relationships between these design decisions. It can also be claimed that their manufacturing methods are analogue reflections of the digital fabrication processes. The craftsman use instant design data that they visualize in their heads and turn them into physical representations in real time. Presence of this similarity, leads to the principal motivation to conduct this research: Revealing the core qualities of the craftsman’s distilled knowledge in producing satisfactory custom-made products, and finding contemporary means to preserve them. In the past century, many archaic practices of craftsmanship and their deep-rooted traditions unfortunately failed to stand the test of time. They fell flat on the course of meeting the ever-more rapidly changing globalized world’s demands and overwhelming technological advancements. Today it is still possible to find a handful of craft professionals here and there, who carry on customizing products relying on the centuries-old accumulated knowledge that they have inherited from their predecessors. While it would be unfair to say that these professionals will cease to exist completely in near future, one can say that a part of the cumulative knowledge is lost with each fellow tradesman that leaves the scene – even if there are people interested in preserving such knowledge (Wood, 2006). Therefore, this thesis will serve for documentation purposes for qualities that make traditional craft-customization processes successful, as well as providing suggestions on how to integrate those attributes into contemporary user-customization interfaces.
1.3 Thesis Research
Within the scope of this thesis, a research was done on the particular group of designer-makers that have a long tradition and extensive past experience in customizing bespoke end-results, namely the craftsman. A series of semi-structured interviews were conducted with craftsmen of different trades in order to gather as much data as possible from their customization methods. Consequently these interviews were turned into assessable information by analyzing, coding, evaluating and categorizing the obtained data. Thus, a set of qualities for craftsmen-customization was designated. The thesis is concluded by comparing craft-customization process to a number of presently available web-based user-customization interfaces and discuss why they possibly fail to offer benefits and end-result satisfaction provided by craftsmen/designer-customization processes. The conclusions derived by this thesis is anticipated to be used for creating more viable mass customization applications by creating user customization interfaces that imitate the success factors in craft-customization.
2. BACKGROUND: HISTORICAL TIMELINE, EXPLANATION OF THE KEY CONCEPTS AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Mass production, the market paradigm that dominated the last century (Pine II, 1993), can be summarized by Henry Ford’s famous statement: "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants; so long as it is black" (Ford, and Crowther, 1922). Ford’s main concern was minimizing the costs, yet he was not defining only an economical concept. The notion named after him, namely Fordism, was also a social system where the workers of his very own factory would become his customers as well (Tolliday and Zeitlin, 1986). In order to reach his goals, Ford has implemented the finest examples of Taylorist division of labor, assembly line production and standardization of his time (Gordon, 2007). In the times when needs prevailed over wants, it was not long before his cost-oriented company reached commercial success. The customers were more concerned with fulfilling their needs with an affordable price rather than the color of their automobiles.
As low-cost mass-produced products dominated the market, pre-World War I USA has started to experience a dramatic economic growth. During these years, cost-centered business planning was sufficient to maximize profits. Yet, in the ‘roaring twenties’ 3
following the World War I, this picture has started to change. Continental North America and especially USA, which has not suffered from war within its borders, have successfully managed to shift from wartime economy to peacetime economy, by transitioning the production of its defense industry to consumer goods, resulting a great manufacturing capacity surpassing the demands (Soule, 1947). Even Ford Motor Company has had to give in from its standardization policy for the sake of competing with GM, which was once the key factor that has brought the company its success (Er, 2009). Consumers, though indirectly, finally had their say on the design of the products. From thereon, except for a couple of brief interruptions due to
3 The Roaring Twenties was the nickname given to the era of great economic growth and widespread prosperity driven by government growth policies, a boom in construction, and the rapid growth of consumer goods such as automobiles during 1920s. The North American economy, particularly the economy of the USA, which had successfully transitioned from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy, boomed... The United States augmented its standing as the richest country in the world, its industry aligned to mass production and its society acculturated into consumerism. In Europe, the economy did not
the Second World War and post-war conditions of the Cold War era, more or less the same paradigm of mass production stayed as the prevailing manufacturing system due to its economic advantages.
Pine (1993) names ‘economies of scales’ as the foremost advantage provided by mass production. From bulk purchases of raw materials to molding standardized outcomes in masses, ‘economies of scales’ is surely the main factor creating mass-produced goods’ price advantage against one-off mass-produced items. But this was not how it used to be; there was a time when customers were not limited with a few options coming through the assembly line. Until the Industrial Revolution spared design from manufacturing, designers were also makers who were offering custom fit solutions to their customers’ unique problems (Heskett, 1985). However, as the paradigm encouraged recurrent multiplication of craftsmen’s designs for economic reasons, the link between designing and making became history (Ibid). If one compares the production process in an assembly line with a craftsperson’s, it is not hard to understand what brings about the difference in the price tags. Despite one-off production’s countless advantages such as tailored outputs and fine quality, number of craftspeople wanes day by day, turning them to a diminutive community, which offer their boutique service to a small elite.
Common definitions of mass production emphasize its qualities of producing ‘standardized products’ in large amounts (Benavides, Segura and Ruiz-Cortés, 2010). From the perspective of mass-market manufacturers, it is essential to increase the size of manufacturing in order to minimize the costs and maximize the profits (Hounshell, 1985). In order to achieve this, the individual necessities of the users are ignored and potential customers are treated as a few homogenous groups (Istook, 2002). This approach is not much different from the industrial design discipline’s point of view: Even by the most contemporary industrial design theory, users are at best accepted as one of the ‘stakeholders’ that designers should take into consideration (Krippendorff, 2006). They are seen as subjects to be ‘studied’: subjects that are listened (questionnaires, focus groups etc.) or observed (design ethnography, video journals etc.) (Sanders, 2002). Yet new technologies and market competition in the last couple of decades gave birth to alternative concepts and approaches, one of the most popular being mass customization (Da Silveira, Borenstein and Fogliatto, 2000), where individual wants and needs of the users were
taken into consideration “with near mass production efficiency” (Tseng and Jiao, 2001).
2.1 Rise of Mass Customization Concept’s Popularity
The idea of mass customization is not new. The early traces can be found in Toffler’s book ‘the Third Wave’ where he introduces the concept of prosumers: the proactive consumers who actively take part in design processes (Toffler, Longul, and Forbes, 1981). However, it was Davis (1987) who coined the term ‘mass customization’, in his book ‘Future Perfect’. Albeit these early anticipation, it was not until last decade before mass customization gained the attraction it has deserved. The significant advancements in manufacturing technologies, such as CNC (Computer numeric control) and FMS (Flexible manufacturing systems), laid the essential foundations for the idea of customizing for the masses to find more voices (Da Silveira, Borenstein and Fogliatto, 2000). Advantages that are generally attributed to craft production such as bespoke results and quality of the outcome could finally be achieved through such computer aided manufacturing technologies (Fan and Schodek, 2007).
By virtue of the competitive market environment, business literature was not late to discover the advantages promised by this new approach (Ibid). Pine, one of the thought leaders of mass customization, points out that businesses should benefit from including users in design process in his book ‘Mass customization: the new frontier in business competition’ as early as 1993. In his seminal text, Pine claims that mass customization will enable each and every customer to make purchases precisely according to his/her unique needs and/or wants, “for a price that he/she is willing to pay” (Pine, 1993). A research by Franke and Piller (2004) supports this view, showing that users’ “willingness to pay” for a self-customized watch almost doubles the price of the top-selling mass-produced alternative. This example shows that the core advantages of craft-produced artifacts could be met with a price tag that is satisfactory both for the customers and manufacturers, and this mutually beneficial exchange would eventually lead mass customization to be a serious business model.
2.2 Reasons for Lack of Success in Mass Customization Business Models
Although ‘mass customization’ was regarded as the prevailing business model of the future since 90’s, to date there have only been a few economically viable mass customization applications (Salvador, Hollan and Piller, 2009). Literature points out various reasons for this phenomenon. Piller (2004), in his earlier text, lists some of the challenges leading to unsuccessful results as: absence of a common definition, ineffective co-design interfaces, lack of complementary aspects in corporate strategy, limited success of the previous attempts, earlier implementations that failed to present a true benefit to users, insufficient focus to process satisfaction and potential risks that customized products bear due to lack of tests. Piller is not the sole academic to claim that “Mass customization is not there yet”. Franke, Keinz, and Schreier (2008) also state that the interactions between customers and mass customization toolkits are not yet performing at a desired level and user interfaces need improvements. Another danger for such interfaces is causing ‘mass confusion’ by overwhelming the users with abundance of choices in an ill-defined structure (Huffman and Kahn, 1998). Reeves, Tuck and Hague (2011) on the other hand point out the lack of feasibility of the previous enabling technologies and claim that the recently spreading use of ‘additive manufacturing technologies’ might finally be the long yearned solution to turn designs into customizable 3D artifacts.
2.3 Key Elements of Mass Customization
Explanations from the literature do indeed hint about why mass customization still has neither succeeded in becoming an alternative for mass-production business model, nor totally wiped bespoke craft production. The concept has still not reached its full potential, since its enablers have not yet fully matured or they are not exploited enough. In order to understand what those enablers are, one needs to understand the key elements of mass customization business models.
Piller and Kumar (2006) list the basic principles for mass customization as (a) modular product/process structures, (b) on-demand manufacturing and (c) consumer co-design. They explain the first principle of modularity as a “flexible, responsive but stable solution space” built to fulfill individual customer needs within a predefined range. They interestingly position this as the main difference between
conventional craft customization and mass customization. This assumption is based on the fact that both the solution space and fulfillment process is rigidly defined in mass customization processes whereas in craft customization these elements are tailored for each individual user. Their second principle, on demand manufacturing, calls attention to the fact that the process of production is not finalized before the customers complete their orders and each product is manufactured individually. While it is obvious that this brings additional operational costs, they cite other researches that mention certain economic advantages in logistic operations, demand management and various post-sales factors (Kumar, 2004. Sanders, 2003). The last principle in the article, consumer co-design is about tools to include customers in the design process. It is emphasized that while the means and extends that customers participate in design process vary, they regard this principle as the main factor that differentiates mass customization from other agile manufacturing strategies. According to their paper, customer co-design is seen as the primal constituent that creates the added value of mass customization, thus co-design tools are the most important elements that will lead a mass customization application to success of failure (Piller and Kumar, 2006)
In a later work by Salvador, De Holan and Piller (2009) there is a similar but more comprehensive and precise definition for the fundamental mass customization principles. They still refer to (a) a solution space – but indicate that it should be build after truly interpreting customer needs, (b) a process design to provide the customers their customized products – which has parallels to on-demand manufacturing but covers other aspects such as logistics, and (c) a tool for “choice navigation” – which would help customer to reach his desired result without causing confusion (Salvador, De Holan and Piller, 2009)
2.3.1 Solution space
The core idea behind mass customization is meeting individual’s needs while keeping production costs in feasible levels. In order to achieve such standards, the design range of the outcomes should be left flexible enough to meet customers’ demands while being kept stable enough to avoid difficulties in the following stages of manufacturing. It is designers’ duty to create such stable yet flexible systems (Pine, 1995).
Hereby mentioned systems can be regarded as a cloud of outcomes within certain boundaries. Mass customization literature gives these ‘systems’ various names with nuances, which differs according to authors’ perspective. Jiao, Ma and Tseng (2003) regard these systems as an accumulation of ‘building blocks’. From their perspective, the designers partition the possible end-results regarding according to certain design and production criteria. The customers then generate the final products using these building blocks. This definition, albeit being very clear in terms of explanation, is inductive in nature. However the design processes of such systems are almost always deductive – in other words, designers envision an outcome (or a stable set of outcomes) first and then divide it into building blocks that can be modified. Therefore while Jiao, Ma and Tseng’s definition might make sense from the manufacturing and production process point of view, it is unsuccessful to reflect design perspective. Another definition is by Tseng and Du (1998), where such systems are described as ‘modular product architectures’. This explanation is indeed deductive, yet it fails to serve as an overarching term. The concept of ‘modularity’ imposes a set of predefined set of components. However, not all customization systems constitute their outcomes through pre-defined pieces. Today it is possible for users to customize in a design space without having to use standardized modules, which are to be manufactured through advanced manufacturing methods – hence their designs still stay within the feasibility boundaries. Tseng and Du’s definition fail to cover such opportunities in contemporary applications of mass customization. A third concept from mass customization literature, which also denominates the title of this section, is ‘product solution space’ (Piller and Kumar, 2006). This simple yet comprehensive name by Piller and Kumar manages to stay outcome oriented while also pointing out the process behind it. It also remains comprehensive through neutral use of words. The concept they define houses both the systems that are constituted through few pre-determined building blocks and algorithms that offer a design space that yields to practically innumerable end-results to co-designing customers. Regardless of how their system is formulated, all mass customization applications have a solution space that is consisted of the accumulation of all possible outcomes (Piller, 2007).
For product designers, the solution space can be translated as a hypothetical batch of potential end-results that are attained through the customer co-design process. Thus
enablers for creating such solution spaces can be defined as design tools that would yield to multiple outcomes through modifiable components.
2.3.2 Advanced manufacturing process
As important it is for designers to develop customizable designs that fulfill wants and needs of the customers, it is also crucial to plan the following stages. Those stages typically deal with means of materialization, marketing, sales and delivery of customized designs. Many of those aspects are case specific and differ by their respective business models. Nevertheless it can be claimed that mass customization business models are essentially shaped by decisions regarding means of materialization, namely the manufacturing method that is used. The nature of the type of manufacturing is the key element to define how other aspects of the business model will be formulated. Therefore, it is apt to designate the manufacturing issues as one of the key elements of mass customization businesses.
Pine (1993) argues that advancements in manufacturing processes are a key factor in mass customization business models. These advancements mean various degrees of flexibility in production, from modularity (Ulrich and Tung, 1991) to complete bespoke manufacturing (Campbell et al., 2003). Yet regardless of manufacturing method’s degree of flexibility, manufacturing in mass customization is significantly different from mass production from one aspect – it must work with principles of “economies of scope” rather than “economies of scale” (Goldhar and Jelinek, 1983). In mass customization context, economies of scope can be understood as minimizing the costs in the manufacturing process of each customized object. This cannot be achieved by using the same tools that are used by mass production. Tools in this context are not only machinery, but also process related concepts such as large-scale manufacturing, standardization and division of labor. Mass customized goods are produced in low numbers at best, non-standard and work specialization for their production is very hard compared to their mass-produced counterparts (if not impossible). In order to have a competitive chance in the market, mass customized products should be manufactured through an unconventional means of production such as CNC (Computer Numerical Control), CAM (Computer-Aided Manufacturing), Robotics and other types of Flexible Manufacturing Systems (Duray et al., 2000).
